If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. ** If you are logged in, most ads will not be displayed. **

what I thought was really stupid was that when I installed it, it got all the packages via ftp and it got all old as hell packages. What is up with that??
If it had to get gnome 1.4, then why couldn't it get something newer for example. I put about 5 ftp sites into the path even.

I am just using gnome as an example, personally I think gnome sucks and I use kde and dropline as well as some other wm's so you might be right Dolda, 1.4 might be better than 2.x but I don't use it enough to compare.

Well, I haven't used Debian, so I can only guess, but my guess is that all those five FTP sites that you had entered were using the stable packages. Like bpark said, there are stable, testing and unstable packages for Debian, and if you're using the stable packages you'll get a minimum number of bugs, while you also might get older versions of the software. I'm guessing that you could draw an analogy (although I don't know just how far-fetched it is) to the difference between RedHat Linux and RedHat Advanced Server.

What do you have against GNOME? I like its programming architecture much more than KDE's, and although it isn't as old as KDE, it does have a lot of good programs for it.

I guess I am someone that likes to use the latest software and just work through the bugs if necessary but also take advantages of the new features. I am not saying that I always use beta versions (in fact I rarely do) but I use the next best thing usually.

There are several things I don't like about Gnome. Most of the things could be changed if I made the effort, but when KDE has things setup exactly how I like, why bother?
For example, I prefer konqueror as a file browser to nautilus for many reasons. One of the most annoying things about nautilus is how it handles the terminal. In kde, I can just click on tools-open terminal and I am right there in that directory and I can su from there or enter commands pertaining to that directory on the spot. I like a lot of the gnome apps, but I just access them thru KDE. I really like how I can use shortcut keys by using the menu editor in kde which of course, gnome does not have. I use at least 8 shortcut keys that I would not have in gnome. I have also heard that adding a new subdirectory to the gnome menu is quite tedious while I know that it can be done in kde quite simply.
Those are just things off the top of my head. I have gnome installed because I like to have access to all of those apps and such, I just don't use gnome as a window manager.
Having said that, I do really like dropline gnome, but that is more for cosmetic reasons.

yes, they may be tested more thoroughly, but there comes a time when a distro needs to move on, I mean, one of the reasons why new ones are made is because of the ADvantages, not because they are just throwing us untested beta versions.

I recently switched from red hat 7.3 to 9 and I must say that as much as I liked 7.3, 9 is very stable and solid.

I don't know where people get the idea that new stuff = unstable. It simply is not true in every case. Especially for major packages.
I have had no problems with rh 9 whatsoever and I have installed numerous new packages.

If a distro has to cling to old and outdated packages because it is too afraid to use the newer packages then I don't want to support that philosophy. I don't really think Debian thinks that way (at least I hope not), but that seems to be what you are conveying.
Please tell me that there is a better argument for using old packages than just because someone thinks they are more stable. What is the use of slightly (if at all) more stable packages when you can't do half the stuff with them that you can with the new ones. Just take k3b for example. I now have all the features working with it in red hat 9 and I could not get them working in 7.3 due to outdated packages.

Whether it's crap or not to you, ask any IT manager and most of the time they'll use the older software BECAUSE it's been more thoroughly tested. A recent software that comes out cannot be categorized as stable until some time has passed and it's proven itself to be stable.
Now this is not to say that all new software are crap. I think this was your mistake in your post where you ASSUMED that I meant all new software are unworthy. There will be many times where a software will have to be upgraded to the latest version to support new features. However, how much use is it if this isn't stable?

The thing is that the people that bundles the distribution, for example redhat cant´t test every single combination of sowtware,hardware that the customers have so for that reason i should never upgrade(at work i mean) to a new version untill the distribution have been out for a while so that others have tried it out and reported in some of the bugs that exist. And redhat have fixed it, i always treat the new distributions as unstable until i have tried them out my self and others have tried it and think it is stable..

I don't know where people get the idea that new stuff = unstable. It simply is not true in EVERY
case. Especially for major packages.
I have had no problems with rh 9 whatsoever and I have installed numerous new packages.

did you see that? "It is simply not true in EVERY case." I didn't make any assumptions

2 - not every linux user uses their system as a server, TONS of people that I talk to are willing to try out a new distro and see what it's like on their HOME computer or a BACKUP computer or maybe they create a primary HOME partition so that they can erase the others without losing information. My point is that a lot of people aren't getting their panties in a bunch over SLIGHT instability with SOME applications. I have tried tons of different distros and seen different configurations all the time. Funny how Gentoo which is rumoured to be the more efficient and stable distro installed kde 3.1 just fine on my backup box for me. Why on earth didn't they use an older version?? lol ya ya I know, no response to that required.

The point here is, put comments into context. If you are talking about a server at work, fine. I get the point. It generally doesn't matter what version of software is used because a lot of the tasks associated with those apps have been available since day 1 almost. HOWEVER, if you are speaking with some versatility in mind, I would be so bold as to say that most newbies and home users want to use the newer software due to its capabilities.
Linux isn't just used by techno geeks and admins, welcome to the revolution friends!

You are making an issue about nothing. If you want the latest software then use the sid branch. If you want all your software to be thoroughly tested then stick with the stable branch.
Sid is labeled as unstable becuase it hasnt been tested as much as the debian team would like before releasing it into stable.

It doesnt mean that the software *is* unstable, only that it might be.

btw - KDE 3.1 and Gnome 2.2 installed just fine on my machine as does all software not currently in stable.